The UN General Assembly unanimously adopted a resolution aimed at protecting the right to privacy against unlawful surveillance in the digital age. The move is being seen as the most vocal global criticism of US eavesdropping and was introduced by Germany and Brazil.

Brazil's President Dilma Rousseff and German Chancellor Angela Merkel were all spied on by the US. The resolution "affirms that the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online, including the right to privacy."

It calls on the 193 U.N. member states "to respect and protect the right to privacy, including in the context of digital communication," to take measures to end violations of those rights, and to prevent such violations including by ensuring that national legislation complies with international human rights law.

It also calls on all countries "to review their procedures, practices and legislation regarding the surveillance of communications, their interception and collection of personal data, including mass surveillance, interception and collection, with a view to upholding the right to privacy of all their obligations under international human rights law."

General Assembly resolutions are not legally binding but they do reflect world opinion and carry political weight. The United States did not fight the measure after it engaged in lobbying with Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, which comprise the "Five Eyes" intelligence-sharing group, to dilute some of the original draft resolution's language.

Frank La Rue, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and Opinion released a landmark report on state surveillance and freedom of expression which backtracks on the UN’s previous policies.

La Rue makes the case for a direct relationship between state surveillance, privacy and freedom of expression. He said that the right to privacy is often understood as an essential requirement for the realisation of the right to freedom of expression.

“Undue interference with individuals’ privacy can both directly and indirectly limit the free development and exchange of ideas. … An infringement upon one right can be both the cause and consequence of an infringement upon the other, “ he wrote.

The report acknowledges the benefits of technological innovations that have enabled rapid, anonymous, cross-cultural dialogues around the world. But it warns that technologies can open a Pandora's box of previously unimaginable state surveillance intrusions.

La Rue reminds States that in order to meet their human rights obligations, they must ensure that the rights to free expression and privacy—and metadata protection in particular—are at the heart of their communications surveillance frameworks. He wants UN members to review national laws regulating surveillance and update and strengthen laws and legal standards.

The US press is ramping up a PR offensive on the UN in a bid to put the fear of God into those who think the World owns the Internet. To be fair the UN idea is not that great for the universe either, particularly as it has the backing of such leading human rights based countries such as China, and Russia.

But at the same time the fear that the US has of handing over the world wide web to the UN is equally as dumb. The way things are, the US president could switch off the Internet because of some nonsense that they came up with the original idea.

If you look at the press this morning, it seems the majority of them fear a UN controlled internet more than they do another Celine Dion album. But if you scratch the surface you discover the reason that they are so against it is a rumor that the UN is thinking of taxing big IT corporations, such as Google, to pay to make sure the world has broadband. So the big tech outfits, who pay little tax to anyone, immediately rush to complain to their congressman to end this sort of talk now.

Currently the Internet is monitored by a largely apolitical private company, which is all well and good. However the US has an input into that body, and at the end of the day it still sings the Star Spangled Banner more than it hums the March of the Volunteers.

The move to shift control of the Internet to a UN commission does make a lot of sense. The world really does own the Internet, not just one country. The difficulty will be how such a commission would make things work in a way that would keep such technology neutral.

Meanwhile the press is muttering all sorts of fear stories about what will happen if those nasty communists in the UN get their way. In fact it is possible that with the right commission, it really could make broadband internet open, free and global.

The UN has accused Britain, France and New Zealand of abusing human rights by bringing in three strikes laws against P2P file-sharers.

United Nations Human Rights Council has released a new report on the state of online free speech around the world. As you would expect he called attention to long-standing censorship problems in China, Iran, and other oppressive regimes, but then waded into so-called free democracies "three strikes" laws.

In France, Britain you can be booted off the Internet for repeated copyright infringement. Frank La Rue, whose official title is "Special Rapporteur said he is "deeply concerned" about proposals to create a centralised system for cutting people off from Internet access as a punishment for copyright infringement. Cutting off Internet access as a response to copyright infringement is "disproportionate and thus a violation of article 19, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights," he said.

He notes that Internet disconnection language has been removed from recent drafts of the ACTA treaty, but writes that he "remains watchful about the treaty’s eventual implications for intermediary liability and the right to freedom of expression."